LIBEL.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 February 1925, Page 4

LIBEL.

(Mercantile Gazette). j If a man wrote and published of ail- t other, “He three years ago broke into his mother’s cash-box and stole one hundred pounds therefrom, and I consider this liis theft stamped him as about the meanest scoundrel that ever lived,” be would be guilty of a defamatory libel. Assuming that an action followed, and the defendant pleaded that the words lie used were true in j .substance, and in fact, would bis justi- • fication, if bis proof extended only to the facts exonerate him from the opin- , ion he had expressed 7Wc will sup-;

pose that the jury, in answer to is- ; sues, found that the defendants’ plea j of justification had been proved, but that his comments were unfair. Would the plaintiff succeed in holding any damages given to him. That is the question which arose in England a month or two since, in a case which > went up to the House of I.ords. A highly-educated lady in London, who ■ holds no medical degrees but has advanced opinion as to the desirability of , artificially controlling the birth-rate, | tviHi tlin /\liior*f of hrimriiur to tllP kll()W-

ledge of her humble sisters in the slums the possibility of preventing conception ' opened a clinic there to which she in- | vited any married women to come. Her j proceeding attracted the attention ot a doctor of high scholastic attainment, , who in a Scientific medical work ho was t writing touched upon tile question ot j birth-control, and incidentally criticised in verv strong terms the teachings and

practice of the lady in question. Tier answer to his strictures was a writ for libel and damages. He justified. Upon the hearing of the action many very eminent medical men were called on both sides, with the result that what the plaintiff's professional men described as good and proper was emphatically denounced by those who were called on behalf of the defendant. Ihe jury, in answer to issues, found that the defendant had proved that what lie had written was true in substance and in fact, hut in another issue sunmitted to them they hold that bis comments were unfair, and they assessed the plaintiff damages at CKO. 'I he Chief Justice who tried the case was of opinion that Hie finding of the iiirv that the defendant laid proved the words he Imd published were true in substance and in fact determined the case, notwithstanding the finding of Hie jury that his comments were uniair. The Court of Appeal reversed by a majority judgment that of the Chief Justice, by holding that effect must he given to the issue found by the jury that the defendant’s comments were unfair. The ease wen I to the House of Lords, which over-ruled (one haw Lord dissenting) the Court of Appeal, and the Court delared that if justification of a libel were pleaded and proved, the plain til!' could not recover merely because the defendant Imd, in the course of his comments, expressed opinions, which, taken by themselves were defamatory of the plnintid, as such opinions were part of the libel and were disposed of by the plea oi justification. Some of the Judges also decided that if the justification Dy the defendant could lie restricted only lo questions of fact, there was not lung in the evidence after disnosiug of those from which tv jury could reasonably find that the comments and opinions expressed by the defendant were unfair, taking them in connection with those matters in respect to which were covered by the plea of justification. Me c. n only give in the space of a newspaper article the merest, sketch of this n ; st important case. Our readers vid. it lhey are int.crested, read the judgment, in the published reports.